I think its a fairly solid bet that if covid was on these shores by the end of 2019, and it is strongly believed it was, then by mid-March a very significant proportion of the population would have been at least exposed to the virus. Let's be honest here, the only reason most governments moved when they did was because they were spooked by other governments did.
I agree that this is a good indicator of what a hash up this enquiry has the scope to be! Predicted by many on here for some time as to how the enquiry would go, sadly it feels it is heading in the direction of a conclusion of "should have done more, earlier, longer, more stringent etc" and make it a "go to" tool for future issues
Well for a start, what testing was actually done prior to March 2020? Certainly the data from ONS shows very little, so how do we know that it wasn't spreading rapidly. If you look at the summary data (chart 1), you'll see that suddenly "deaths involving covid" came out of nowhere. But was that really the case, did covid hang around for a few months to avoid winter for the NHS? Realistically, it is likely that covid was moving quickly through the population from late 2019. It was definitely suspected where I live, because not long after a local businessman returned from Wuhan province (around 18/12/19 if I recall correctly), reports of symptoms that would ultimately be used to indicate possible covid infections went around the area, including the landlady of a local pub he frequented ending up in hospital on a ventilator. The story even reached the BBC as potential evidence of when the virus landed on these shores.
I don't dispute it was probably circulating in the later parts of 2019, I'm simply far from convinced by the idea that a "significant proportion" of people had already had Covid before February/March 2020. Unless there is an argument it mutated between the end of 2019 and February/March 2020 so everyone who had alreayd been infected once got it again in a more dangerous form for it to suddenly start killing a lot of people. Your own linked data shows that deaths only rose above the 5-year average in March which is surely not what you'd expect if it was cirulating in a "significant proportion" of people in late-2019? Agreed thought that testing is obviously a problem in detection early on.
My point is did it "suddenly start killing people"? For a start if it was circulating for a while, people may well have been dying from with without diagnosis right back to December. And let's not also forget that reporting methods changed over time, I'm fairly certain it started out as being the cause of death for all people with it, to being a possible cause of death within 90 days of testing, then 28 days of testing. Frankly the reporting of the data left a lot to query throughout the main part of restrictions.
But there's no spike in deaths above the 5-year average until March 2020, indeed it was below average in January/February 2020? For it to be killing significant numbers of people, which is what you'd expect if it was circulating in a "significant proportion" of the population, you would surely expect to see deaths rising above the average earlier than it did in reality? Unless the suggestion is that there were two forms of Covid. An earlier version that infected loads of people in the end of 2019 through February 2020 and was fairly benign and then a mutated version that was more lethal from February 2020 onwards?
Well one explanation could be that large numbers of elderly people were tipped out of hospitals back into care homes, and at the same time the NHS snapped shut for an awful lot of people. In fact at lot of those excess deaths correlate with the policy of handing over care to care homes instead of the NHS. Not only could that have massively increased the risk for those so vulnerable, but for other elderly residents who were previously not as exposed.
Well. Testing earlier might support your argument - but then again how come a rising number of people were getting very ill and dying from something ?.
It would not "suddenly start killing people". I can very clearly remember cases rising in Northern Italy. That was our clue - we sat on our hands.
You may have missed my last post, please see above.
The emptying of wards and sending of elderly back to care homes was an indication to me of how overwhelmed the NHS believed they would get. The consequences were very sad of course.
Or a panicked and ill-judged response. I know which way I lean towards, because even at the time it was widely condemned.
Actually more like people in and out of long term care in the NHS, who were tipped out of an environment were intensive care was at least nearby to one were it was not. I'm sorry but that along with that spike in excess deaths happening around 4 weeks after lockdown started and the mass ejection of people from NHS care doesn't just ring bells, it sounds ruddy great, loud claxtons all over.
You need to understand that a lockdown - even a drastic one is not going to suddenly stop Covid cases. It takes time for the cases to fall. The fact that the case rate continued to rise only indicated how bad things were getting.
Fair enough we clearly going to have to agree to disagree. As far as I can see the only "evidence" that Covid was circulating in a "significant proportion" of the population before February/March 2020 is that there is evidence of some infections being present in the UK in late 2019. But clearly you disagree anyway and feel that lots of people already had had covid by February/March 2020 and that the fact that deaths increased suddenly then is unrelated to any increase in cases which may or may not have occured. Don't seem particularly persuasive to me but that's fine you do you
The test and trace system was hopeless, yes, but it was because of how poorly it was done, and to have done it properly would've required more effort than a government lead by Boris Johnson was willing to expend. Lockdowns in the UK stemmed from the failure of the political system as much as it did from the failure to adequately respond to the virus, yet for many lockdown advocates and fans, it was the only way forward, and despite the negative long term impacts that will inevitably stem from the lockdowns they would do it all over again given the chance. While a significant number of people might actually start favouring bringing back restrictions, to me personally the very idea of it is egregious.
You keep on about this but at the end of the day we were talking about a virus that has less impact than flu. I could understand the panic if it was Ebola that was as transmittable but it wasn't. I know people died from it, sorry but this happens, we all die of something (remember you don't save lives just delay death) and, as I've said before, a lot of these people were at the end of their natural lives.
Track and trace was hopeless because it's never going to work. Nothing to do with government in at the time as everything to do with 'being seen to be doing something'. It was clear early on that this virus wasn't one to be madly panicking over but media and political influences meant cat was already out of the bag and general population were scared of it.
I somewhat disagree. I definitely think a proper test and trace system would've been preferable for keeping the virus in check without needing to enforce too many restrictions on everyday life, combined with strict hygiene measures and isolating when ill. The extent of how much testing and tracing can be somewhat debated, but I do think it would've definitely been preferable compared to inconsistent rules and national lockdowns that were the easiest ways of looking like they were doing something. I do agree that the widespread hysteria and mass panic were uncalled for, but I think that died down as fatigue began to set it from continuous restrictions, especially after Number 10 had been partying several times throughout the pandemic which only sent the message that not even our so-called leaders thought much of these rules and therefore why should we.
I also suspect this
For test and trace to work it would need to have been developed far far quicker. Starting development earlier was necessary. We should be developing a test and trace system now for the future. Granted the test bit will be tricky as we don't know what we would be testing for yet. The cost of a mothballed test and trace system would be insignificant compared to what we ended up with.
My bold
I agree that a proper test and trace system implemented as soon as we knew Covid was on its way would have helped and that a lot of the mass hysteria and panic was uncalled for and unhelpful
I just don't know how much time we would have had. But my argumant is that the trace pat could be got ready now for an unknown future. Would it really cost that much to develop and make obsolete every decade or so a system that could be needed in 100 years time.
While obviously we can't close the borders forever I agree we should have pulled the drawbridge up a lot sooner as it were to try and buy some time to get more capacity in the NHS for what was to come
I would go along with that except to say I don't think we were ever going to get extra capacity in the NHS except by what we did - clearing the decks. Cannot even sort the NHS out in normal times.
Can be as lost for words as you like the fact is it is less likely to be fatal to majority of population than flu.
Why? The severity of this virus was seriously overstated, I know some people died from it but they do from lots of things, we don't panic about most of them especially when there's a highly likely probability you'll recover from it.
Well we obviously know that now, but back then not so much. The panic was obviously not productive but it wasn't totally unfathomed when most people hear news of a mysterious virus sweeping China that lead to them locking down hard. The biggest mistake was when the media continued to portray it as the ultimate killer that you must cross the road for in order to even stand a chance of surviving the possibility of catching it. The focus should've been on making sure the spread could be controlled without disrupting too much of every day life, and even other lockdown sceptics didn't suggest just doing nothing. The mistake was again letting fear dictate the direction we went in with our policies.
